lewisd

Thanks so much! Love the plugin.

Wow, that is certainly an unconventional design! How does it fly? Did you get the center of mass lined up with the thrust nicely? I'm looking forward to seeing screenshots/video of your mission

Above the engine? Intriguing. Don't those fairing panels collide with the lander when you try to get it out? I tried doing something like that (launching my munar subs satellites though a panel) but it didn't work.

Wow! That's an impressive looking Eagle. Where did you store the rover during descent?

Thanks for putting together such an awesome challenge. I had so much fun doing it. I did a lot of looking at photos and diagrams of a Saturn V, the LM, CM, etc, trying to make it as realistic as possible. The hardest part was sticking with the engine layout: 5 Mainsails (F-1) on the bottom, 5 Skippers (J-2) on the 2nd stage, and 1 Skipper (J-2) on the 3rd stage. Really limits how much the rest of it can weigh!

KerbCam looks like exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks!

A lot of the fan-made videos I've seen have ships flying past cameras that are positioned in space somewhere, or have Kerbals walking around, or EVAing, but with a fixed camera position. How on earth(kerbin) do they do that? I've made one video, and would love to make some more, but I don't know how to do that camera trick, which opens up so much more posibility for cool videos.

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. It's the first KSP video I've ever done.

I haven't had a chance to take screenshots from the video I recorded, but here's my entry: Should be 218 points. Goals - 3-man Mission +10 - 2-man Lander +10 - 2-stage Lander (leave the decent-engine on the mün) +20 - Main rocked aspargus'd? -10 (Wernher von Kerman does not like aspargus!) - Escape tower? +10 - Lander stored behind the CM during ascent +20 - Lander tucked away behind some fairing? +5 - Free return trajectory to the mün +10 - Flawless landing (no parts broke off, Neil Armstrong is watching you!) +10 - Got a Munar Roving Vehicle (MRV) on board? +15 - After succesfull Mün landing docked CM and MM in Orbit (no swapping ships without docking them first) +10 - MM disposed by crashing it into the Mün (remove Kerbal first!) +5 - Plant flag on the Mün (no cumulative, i.e. two flags don't get you 6 points) +3 - Spashing down on Kerbin (land on water) +5 - Kerbal dies -20 Awesome new goals: - Deploy münar sub-satellite before returning to Kerbin +10 Points Landing accuracy (not cumulative) - Land within 100 meters of the NAM +15 I was roving on the Moon one day... (not cumulative) - Are we there yet? - 15 points - Drive beyond 10km of the lander MSEP - Mün Surface Experimental Package (not cumulative) MSEP must have power, probecore and at least one science-thingy - Science extravaganza! - 15 points - Deploy four experimental packages 2.5km from the landing site (and at least 2.5km from eachother)

Thanks for the tip on VideoPad! It's working great. I just finished my first KSP video, for an Apollo Style challenge.

I did try with fraps, and reencoded everything before doing any editing. That's actually what I tried first, but the incredible amount of disk space really turned me off. Bandicam is able to encode in real time no problem on my computer, so I was hopeful for it. The videos from it play fine on their own, and play fine in the Sony video editing software, until I try to overlap videos to do a crossfade. I haven't tried any other editor software yet. The other thing I liked about Bandicam was the ability to hide the mouse cursor. I didn't realize at the time that fraps has the same option. I'd really like to be able to use Bandicam though, because of the live encoding. The frams videos I had, taking up 80GB, encoded down to around 700MB. Does anyone have good luck using other video editing software with Bandicam?

I'm trying to put together a video of a mission I did, but I'm having problems with various bits of software. I bought Bandicam to use for recording video, which seems to work ok, but when I import the videos into the trial version of Sony Movie Studio Platinum, any time I try to crossfade them, I get horrible MPEG compression corruption artifacts all over the screen. What do you folks use for making videos?

Do you have the "Compact" button that's in this screenshot? It makes it look like this: I drag that to the bottom of the screen then, so that only the title bar is showing.

With Engineer, if you're only using the build engineer, the "compact" button does make it quite a bit smaller, and then you can stick it down at the bottom of the screen so you can only see the title bar, and just drag it up when you need to see the values. That's how I minimize the space it uses. I can confirm that Engineer has been updated for R&D. If you add it before you start a game, you'll have the parts right away. Otherwise, you just have to go into R&D and unlock (for free) the parts.

One thing Engineer has that I don't think MechJeb has is the ability to tell you your thrust-to-weight ratio for various planets and moons. I use this a lot for making sure my Mun/Duna return vehicles have enough thrust to actually lift off.

Huh, ok. I thought I remembered it working differently. I guess I was just remembering wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

I feel like I'm losing my mind here. If I take a fuel tank, put an engine on the bottom, then radially attach a couple fuel tanks on the side of the center tank, then the single engine in the middle should draw fuel from all three tanks, without needing fuel lines or anything, right? No decouplers or girders or anything involved, just 3 tanks and an engine. Mine's not using the side tanks. Is this a known issue or anything?

Do you have a joystick plugged in? I had this problem, until I realized that the throttle on my joystick was sitting at "full throttle" position. Lost a moon base before I figured out what was going on.

Ouch. Yeah, I'd call that "so low it's virtually useless". Too bad. A 0-thrust, higher power/efficiency alternator engine would be a nice mod part. Oh, wow. I also just looked, and they've increased the power generated by most of the engines in 0.22 (as well as adding an alternator to the nuclear engine), so if it's that inefficient in 0.22, I can't imagine how bad it was in 0.21!

Do you mean pointed at each other, or pointing away from each other? >= =< or =< >= (where < and > is the nozzle) I'd be happy if either of them works. And I'm curious what the power output would be if the throttle is only one or two notches up. It may be that it's so low it's virtually useless.

Yeah, it would make a pretty cool mod. (Maybe there is one already? I haven't looked.) Unfortunately for me, I'm trying to do it for a stock challenge thread.

Oh, wow! That hadn't even occurred to me. I haven't tried 0.22 yet. Work.

If you're still looking for extra points to add to this, maybe points for the MSEPs being deployed by the rover, rather than dropped from orbit? As far as I understand, the MSEPs were something the astronauts deployed by hand, so dropping them from the rover, or from the lander after it's landed (or maybe while it's below a certain surface velocity?) would be closer to an Apollo mission. I'm working on my attempt for this right now. There are a few "stretch goals" I'm aiming for, some of which people on this thread have already done, but I'm not sure if anyone's done all of them: Munar Subsatellite: - RCS only, no liquid fueled engine. (As I understand, it was more or less just pushed out of the SIM bay.) - Antenna, instruments, and power. (Able to perform SCIENCE in 0.22.) MSEP: - RTG powered only. (batteries allowed, but no solar) - Antenna, instruments, and power. (Able to perform SCIENCE in 0.22.) - No engine/RCS/SAS of any sort, must be positioned purely by the rover or lander. Rover: - 2 seats. - Battery power only. Launch craft: - 3 stages to orbit, and trans-munar injection. - perform LM/COM swap on the way to the mun. - leave the fairing that hides the lander attached to the 3rd stage after the lander is removed. Lander: - Battery power only. (or a fuel cell, if I can figure out how to create one using opposed liquid fuel engines so they don't generate any net thrust.)

Has anyone tried making a "fuel cell" stock, by taking two LV-T30 engines, facing opposite directions, so there is no net thrust applied, and maybe trying to arrange them so they're inside a fuel tank or something, so it doesn't take up too much space? You'd only ever be able to run it at a tiny amount of throttle or the exhaust would destroy things. It might even still, at very low throttle? Does it even generate any power at all with only one or two notches of throttle? That engine is the smallest stock one I could find that has an alternator. I know that using solar panels or an RTG is way easier, but I'm planning an Apollo recreation mission, and I'm trying to use batteries and fuel cells only on the lander.

Hmm, you're right. From looking at the part.cfg file (all I can do right now) the "Aerodynamic Nose Cone" has gone from 0.3 drag to 0.1. "angularDrag" is 0.5 (unchanged), so maybe the difference between those is what helps force parts to move through the air in a certain orientation, the fact that the drag on an angle is higher than the drag straight on. The larger difference now (0.4 vs 0.2) would make this force stronger... if that's how things work.